ArticleBMC oral health2026
From algorithms to empathy: can large language models effectively answer patients' questions in restorative dentistry?
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the responses given by the large language models (LLMs) ChatGPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2, and Claude Sonnet-4.5 in terms of accuracy, empathy, and readability, to frequently asked patient questions about restorative dentistry. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-five open-ended questions were posed in English to ChatGPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp, and Claude Sonnet-4.5 models in individual, independent sessions. Accuracy was scored using a 5-point Likert-type scale and empathy a 3-point Likert-type scale by two experienced evaluators, and inter-rater reliability was calculated using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Readability was evaluated through an online platform using the FRES, FKGL, GFI, SMOG, and CLI indexes. Group comparisons were performed using ANOVA/Kruskall-Wallis and post-hoc Dunn-Bonferroni tests according to the normality distribution of the data.
resultsThe inter-rater reliability was found to be high score for accuracy and showed variability according to the model for empathy. Statistically significant differences were determined between the models in terms of accuracy (p < 0.001), with the highest mean value obtained by DeepSeek-V3.2 (4.8 ± 0.5), followed by Claude Sonnet-4.5 (4.28 ± 0.61) and ChatGPT-5 (4.12 ± 0.67), and the lowest accuracy was determined for Gemini 2.5 Pro (3.6 ± 0.5). Statistically significant differences were determined between the models in terms of empathy (p < 0.001), with the highest mean value obtained by DeepSeek-V3.2 (1.96 ± 0.2). The readability measurements showed that overall, DeepSeek-V3.2 produced more readable texts with higher FRES values (60.85 ± 8.2) (p < 0.001).
conclusionsWithin the scope of this study, DeepSeek-V3.2 exhibited a comparatively more balanced performance profile across accuracy, empathy, and readability measures. While Claude Sonnet-4.5 and ChatGPT-5 showed high accuracy, the results for empathy and readability criteria were variable. No model can replace a clinical specialist, and these systems should be evaluated as decision-making tool under specialist supervision, especially at the stages of patient education and first providing information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.